On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If people had succeeded in cleaning up the abuse problems in 1995
> when the human touch was still feasible, we would not have the
> situation that we have today. Automation is the only way to address
> the flood of abuse email,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 08:49:39PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Abuse desk is a $0 revenue operation. Is it not obvious what the issue is?
Two points, the first of which is addressed to this and the second
of which is more of a recommended attitude.
1. There is no doubt that many operations
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22:59AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> There's a novel idea. Require incoming senior staff at an email
> company to work a month at the abuse desk before they can assume the
> duties for which they were hired.
>
> My hunch says that's a non-starter. It also doesn't keep
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:01:26PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > - Automation is far less important than clue. Attempting to
> > compensate for lack of a sufficient number of sufficiently-
> > intelligent, experienced, diligent staff with automation is
> > a known-losing strategy, as anyone
I largely concur with the points that Paul's making, and would
like to augment them with these:
- Automation is far less important than clue. Attempting to compensate
for lack of a sufficient number of sufficiently-intelligent, experienced,
diligent staff with automation is a known-losing strate
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:50PM +, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> When one accepts an email[*], one wishes for some sort of _a priori_
> information regarding message trustworthiness. DKIM can vouch for
> message authenticity, but not trust.
At the moment, this problem can't be solved on an
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:55:13PM -0500, Ross wrote:
> Again I disagree with the principle that this list should be used for
> mail operation issues but maybe I'm just in the wrong here.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying, although perhaps I'm
not saying it very well.
What I'm saying
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:04:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
A number of things that are true, including:
> I say the core problem in spam are the botnets capable of delivering
> on the order of 100 billion msgs/day.
But I say the core problem is deeper. Spam is merely a symptom of an
underlyi
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:59AM -0500, Ross wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
> > mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on m
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 09:36:43AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> *heh* And yet just last year, Yahoo was loudly dennounced for
> keeping logs that allowed the Chinese government to imprison
> political dissidents. Talk about damned if you do, damned if don't...
But those are very different kin
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:58:05PM -0400, Rob Szarka wrote:
> I report dozens of spams from my personal account alone every day and never
> receive anything other than automated messages claiming to have dealt with
> the same abuse that continues around the clock or, worse, bogus/clueless
> cla
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 05:51:23PM -0700, chuck goolsbee wrote:
> Thanks for the update Jared. I can understand your request to not be used
> as a proxy, but it exposes the reason why Yahoo is thought to be clueless:
> They are completely opaque.
>
> They can not exist in this community without
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:30:06PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> Is it just us or are there general problems with sending email to
> yahoo in the past few weeks?
It's not you. Lots of people are seeing this, as Yahoo's mail servers
are apparently too busy sending ever-increasing quantities of spa
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 06:32:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> for a measurement experiment, i would like O(100k) *headers* from spam
> from europe and a similar sample from the states.
Request for clarification: do you mean "spam originating at IP addresses
believed to be in Europe" or "spam rece
Can someone put this in a digest for me?
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Fri Mar 21 16:44:39 2008
Subject: Re: default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:05:19PM -0700, ann kok wrote:
> Some DSL clients, some are working fine.
> (browsing...ping ...)
>
> Some DSL clients have this problem
> they can't browse the sites.
> they can ssh the host but couldn't run the command in
> the shell prompt
> ping packet are working fi
I hate Cyber Jihads!
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Neil Fenemor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Will Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Sun Feb 24 16:06:50 2008
Subject: RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
Clearly, they are incensed by youtube co
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:43:35AM -0800, Mike Lyon wrote:
> Could someone who reads (or is suppose to read...) empty the mailbox
> over at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would appear that little has changed:
> The following addresses had delivery problems:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Permanent Failure:
> 522
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 09:38:40AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Some people have compared unwanted Internet traffic to water pollution, and
> proposed that ISPs should be required to be like water utilities and
> be responsible for keeping the Internet water crystal clear and pure.
Yes -- well,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 06:51:42AM +, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Sure, it's an "unfortunate limitation", but I hardly think it's
> an issue to hand-wave about and say "oh, well".
>
> Suggestions?
There are numerous techniques available for addressing this problem.
Which one(s) to use depends on
this traffic.
We've seen the negative of course, perhaps the positive is to give the user
what they want ..just on the providers terms.
my 2 cents
Rich
--
From: "Frank Bulk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 2
y to find cache servers with their hashes on
them .
I am told these methods are in fact covered by the DMCA but remember I am no
lawyer.
Feel free to reply direct if you want contacts
Rich
--
From: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
g to me on a number
of levels. Anyway, it's "fixed."
--
Rich Graves http://claimid.com/rcgraves
Carleton.edu Sr UNIX and Security Admin
CMC135: 507-646-7079 Cell: 952-292-6529
ing table entry for 73.112.0.0/14, version 31179171
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
5006 3549 3356 13367 13367 13367 13367
137.192.32.173 from 137.192.32.173 (172.30.0.5)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Community: 328073238
--
Rich Graves http://claimid.com/rcgraves
Carleton.edu Sr UNIX and Security Admin
CMC135: 507-646-7079 Cell: 952-292-6529
Anyone aware of an issue with ATT / Time-Warner? We're seeing
traceroutes from ATT to TW die around 24.95.x.x (*.columbus.rr.com)
Thanks,
Rich
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:12:19PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks they don't even
"punish"?
Since when is it "punishment" to refuse to extend a privilege that's been
repeatedly and systematically abused? (You have of course, absolutely
no r
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 03:44:01PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> The same thing happens with things like abuse -- it is easy to deal
> with abuse on a small scale. It is somewhat harder on a medium scale
> and harder still on a large scale -- the progression from small to
> medium to large i
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:44:59AM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Comcast is known to emit lots of abuse -- are you blocking all their
> networks today?
All? No. But I shouldn't find it necessary to block ANY, and wouldn't,
if Comcast wasn't so appallingly negligent.
( I'm blocking huge swaths of
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 04:20:59PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Define network operator: the AS holder for that space or the operator of
> that smaller-than-slash-24 sub-block? If the problem consistently comes
> from /29 why not just leave the block in and be done with it?
Because experience...
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:50:34PM +, Fergie wrote:
> I would have to respectfully disagree with you. When network
> operators do due diligence and SWIP their sub-allocations, they
> (the sub-allocations) should be authoritative in regards to things
> like RBLs.
After thinking it over: I part
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 02:31:25PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I understand your frustration and appreciate your efforts to contact the
> sources of abuse, but why indiscriminately block a larger range of IPs than
> what is necessary?
1. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about it.
I often block
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:09:47PM +, Peter Corlett wrote:
> Would you care to expand on why you think sender callback
> verification is apparently abusive and supports spam?
(a) this is wandering off-topic and (b) this has been covered in great
depth on Spam-L multiple times, so I'll refer
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:41:58PM -0700, S. Ryan wrote:
> However, while it's not really above me to do the same, he could
> have removed the email address so spammers aren't adding to that guys
> list of problems.
Anti-spam strategies based on concealment and/or obfuscation of addresses
are n
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:31:30AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Counting IP addresses tends to greatly overestimate and underestimate
> the problem of compromised machines.
>
> It tends to overestimate the problem in networks with large dynamic
> pools of IP addresses as a few compromised machine
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:04:13PM +, Simon Waters wrote:
> I simply don't believe the higher figures bandied about in the discussion for
> compromised hosts. Certainly Microsoft's malware team report a high level of
> trojans around, but they include things like the Jar files downloaded ont
I really don't want to get into an OS debate here, but this does
have major operational impact, so I will anyway but will be as
brief as possible. Please see second (whitespace-separated) section
for some sample hijacked system statistics which may or may not
reflect overall network population.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:03:17PM -0800, Peter Moody wrote:
> Dr. Cerf wasn't speaking for Google when he said this, so I'm not sure why
> you're looking that direction for answers. But since you ask, his data came
> from informal conversations with A/V companies and folks actually in the
> tren
My two (and a half) cents.
1. Systems that need a firewall, antivirus and antispyware software added
on to survive for more than a few minutes SHOULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE
INTERNET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They're simply not good enough.
It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. (nod to Mr. Conn
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:02:45AM -0500, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
> Is there an RBL for mail servers run by brain dead "postmasters" that
> insist on running anti-viral software that sends out less-than-useless
> "virus alerts", "virus in your email", "banned attachment" spewage to
> the guarantee
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:25:41PM -0800, Mike Lyon wrote:
> Their gateway is blocking mail from my host. Of course, there is no
> clueful contact info on their webpage...
I know you asked for off-list, but since this (mail to Verizon
refused) is a recurring problem, I'm sending this on-list as w
We've told people for years that when they choose to use a DNSBL or
RHSBL that they need to (a) subscribe to the relevant mailing list,
if it has one and/or (b) periodically revisit the relevant web site,
if it has one, so that they can keep themselves informed about any
changes in its status or
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 07:04:37PM -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> (As an example, consider what happens *to you*
> if a hospital stops getting emailed results back from their outside
> laboratory service because their "email firewall" is checking your
> server, and someone dies as a result of
holy kook bait.
it's amazing after all these years, and companies, how
many people, and companies, still don't "get it".
/rf
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
> So why the big deal?
Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
it's an attempt to unilaterally shove an unenforceable contract down
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:50:57AM -0500, David Hester wrote:
> CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html
CNN is behind the times. We passed 90% junk (spam, viruses, bogus virus
warnings, worms, outsc
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:14:43AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2006, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i wonder if that's due to the spam they've been sending out?
> Paul, this isn't nanae. Let's not sling accusations like that wildly.
There's nothing "wild" about it -- Paul is one of the
and you will NEVER see this service again until there
is a monetary incenctive to offer said service. So..
why is this still a discussion?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
This may be a nit, but, you will _NEVER_ see AC power at any, let alone all
of
the seats. Seat power that wo
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:29:52PM -0500, Robert J. Hantson wrote:
> So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions
> that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an
> adminidictator?
Yes. First, run a quality MTA -- that *requires* an open-source
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:42:32PM -0600, Allan Poindexter wrote:
> Far more damage has been done to the functionality of email by antispam
> kookery than has ever been done by spammers.
That is not even good enough to be wrong.
---Rsk, with apologies to Enrico Fermi
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:57:20PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Now this is interesting to me, because proxad has been at least as big a
> pain in my side as far as drones and SPAM sources. [snip]
>
> Anyone else seeing the same amount of problems with these guys?
Yes. My current list shows
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:21:04PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> The killer here is that they asked a lot of people a year ago whether this
> was a good idea and everyone said no.
Agreed.
It's just the latest in the series of fiascos that we've seen when
people try to respond to abuse with abu
I agree with nearly all of your analysis, but want to add
a few small points of my own.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:53:03AM -0600, Micheal Patterson wrote:
> Can BATV correct this? Possibly.
After reading further and thinking about it: I believe the
answer isn't "possibly", but "almost certainly
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:15:00PM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
> >When auth fails, one knows *right then* c/o an SMTP reject. No bounce
> >is necessary.
>
> This assumes all messages are rejected within the SMTP session.
Yes, exactly and the point several of us have been making is that
this is (
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:03:10AM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
> There is a solution you can implement now that gets rid of these tens of
> thousands of virus and abuse laden DSNs you see every day before the
> data phase.
BATV is not a solution.
It's a band-aid.
It fails to address the underlyi
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:27:58PM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote:
> What about all the viruses out there that don't forge addresses?
Three responses.
First, these are pretty much a minority nowadays: so unless someone
wants to code AV responses on a case-by-case basis, the best default
is "don't re
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 03:18:29PM -0800, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Blocking based on rDNS simply because it implies that a certain piece of
> equipment is at that address is... not advisable.
Agreed. Those blocks aren't in place because there's a certain piece
of equipment at those addresses (hostn
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:58:20AM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> If it is on by default, it is a bug, and not operator error.
(In the case of the Barracuda) there are at least two such switches:
one for spam, one for viruses. Note that when both are set to "off" that
the box still occasionally e
Two comments.
First, it's everyone's responsibility to do what's necessary
to prevent their operation from being an abuse source, vector,
or support service. That includes registrars, web hosts, DNS
providers, email services, consumer ISPs, webmail services,
corporations, end-users -- *everyon
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:10:12PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Every company has to obey the laws of the jurisdictions
> in which they do business, and for international
> companies, that list of jurisdictions can be very,
> very long.
Obeying the (local) law is, in most cases, very reasona
[late followup]
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 07:32:20PM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> >More bluntly: the closed-source, "faith-based" approach to security
> >doesn't cut it. The attacks we're confronting are being launched
> >(in many case
This issue is resolved.
Thanks to all who responsed on and off list.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Rich Emmings wrote:
Anyone else (Wiltel customers especially) running into an operational issue
around D.C. with partial connectivity
Anyone else (Wiltel customers especially) running into an operational issue
around D.C. with partial connectivity
It would seem MCI and Wiltel around D.C. have a 'informal' peering
relationship and it's been errored right now for about 39 hours with a
half-duplex route announcement. This ha
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:11:45PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There really is no such thing as closed source.
I've been saying this for years, and I'm sure you and I aren't the only ones.
Corrallaries:
A. If open publication of the full source code of XYZ would render
it insecure, then
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 02:22:07PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> Yahoo and Cisco Monday plan to announce they will submit
> their e-mail authentication specification, DomainKeys
> Identified Mail (DKIM), to the IETF to be considered as
> an industry standard.
None of these have the sligh
According to IANA, (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) MIT
& MERIT are the two .edu /8 holders on the list. Stanford turned their /8
in a while ago.
Many?
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Rubbish. Many of the organizations that hold legacy /8s are Universities.
[late followup, sorry]
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:42:17AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The real fight is to find ANY techniques that have long-term, global
> benefit in reducing spam.
We've already got them -- we've always had them. What we lack is
the guts to *use* them.
As we've seen over a
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:39:07PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> P.S. It would really be great if IETF remained true to its origin
> and goals did did technical reviews and selected proposals based on
> the technical capabilities and not on what large company is exerting
> pressure on them
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:48:58AM -0400, Ben Hubbard wrote:
> You seem to repeatedly describe a solution that becomes so big that it (at
> least substantially) replaces 25/SMTP. That's what I don't think will
> work, or is needed.
Please let me borrow Ben's point and expand on it.
Spam as it's
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
> VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
> and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up (unless I'm
missing something). And I've no desire to
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
provide anonymiz
> If FairUCE can't verify sender identity, then it goes into
> challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender,
Let me rephrase that more accurately:
"...spamming everyone who has been so unfortunate as to
have their address forged into a mail message..."
Cha
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, pashdown wrote:
> In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business.
> We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for
> our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software
> ar
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
If this write-up is accurate, then this is incredibly stupid
in multiple ways and on multiple levels. I *hope* that this
is just a misperception based on poor writing and that nobo
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500, Paul G wrote:
> unfortunately, that *still* didn't stop people from using it, which
> translated into an unresolvable headache for me as a sp.
Then gripe at the people who chose to use it: it was *their*
decision, and if it was a poor one, then they are
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:21:35AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> o could this be used as a dos and then become extortion?
Unlikely. Blocklists are used by choice, and blocklists which
either aren't effective or don't have sane policies don't get
chosen often. (See "BLARS", which even blars was r
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:17:48AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> I don't know that this is the case, I suspect it's
> resource management. If the database is getting
> slaughtered by applications on uncontrolled auto pilot,
> it's unusable for the rest of us.
Understood.
So why not make it e
[ This discussion should be moved to Spam-L. ]
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:35:53AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You misunderstand me. I believe *LESS* red tape will mean
> better service. Today, an email operator has to deal with
> numerous blacklisting and spam-hunting groups, many of which
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:34:21AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Because the recipient *expressly* requested that "all mail which would reach
> my inbox on your system be sent to me at AOL (or any other "somewhere else").
I have three somewhat-overlapping responses to that -- and I'll try to
stay
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:53:14PM -0500, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Now here I would disagree. These are specific requests by
> individuals to forward mail to from one of their own accounts to
> another one of their own accounts.
But a request to forward mail is not a request to facilitate
abuse
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:56:54PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> we aim to please? or was there some hidden meaning to your email/troll?
1. I didn't realize that accurately reporting the facts was now considered
a "troll". Fascinating.
2. Nope, there's no hidden meaning -- unless you're
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was?
Well, by one metric, they're #1:
RankISP Number of currently-listed spam issues
--- --- --
1
It gets worse:
Database giant gives access to fake firms
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6969799/
---Rsk
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:21:19PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Nils Ketelsen wrote:
>
> >Only thing that puzzles me is, why it took spammers so long to go in
> >this direction.
> It didn't. It took the media long to notice.
Pete's correct. And there's another reason: spammers have long
since
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:42:55AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CNET reports
> http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
> that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the local
> ISP's mail servers rather than trying their
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:26:47PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > 4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
> > confiscated, just temporarily removed from the root dbs) immediately
> > and their owners contacted.
>
> Because there is no data protection on many databas
I'm going to try to keep this short, hence it's incomplete/choppy. Maybe
we should take it to off-list mail with those interested.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Janet Sullivan wrote:
> Great! So, if you are a vulnerable minority, don't use the internet.
I said precisely the opposi
Reply (*long* reply) being sent off-list. If anyone else wants to
see it, rattle my cage.
---Rsk
I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion, but
here are a few comments (in some semblance of order) which relate
to the operational aspects.
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
ano
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:43:21PM +, Simon Waters wrote:
> The most obvious is none of the three UK ISPs I have ready access to can
> connect to port 25 on relay.verizon.net. (MX for all the verizon.net email
> addresses). We can ping it (I'm sure it isn't singular?), but we have no more
>
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:59:33PM +, Alex Bligh wrote:
> They clearly don't "already have" this information, or they wouldn't
> be
> a) offering to pay people for it
> b) continue to be trying to obtain it by data mining.
Sure, some of "them" quite clearly don't. And so they're buying it
fr
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:52:38AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> After a much too long introduction here comes my questions: is this
> deliberate? I can understand that Chad has bigger things to worry about
> than 24 domains getting on yet another spam list, but why Canada makes
> nearly half a milli
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:56:49PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And if enough people clean up the bots on their network,
> then a case can be made for depeering (or severely damping)
> networks that don't clean up their act.
Agreed.
But few, if any, will "clean up their act". For instance,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:59:14AM -0800, Brett wrote:
> I personally like the idea, even though it's not original, it just
> took a large site to back it. Too bad they couldn't do it right.
It *can't* be done "right".
That's the point that some of us have been making, both in an ethical
sens
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:18:52PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> Can you direct me toward a singluar entity of 1MM bots controlled by
> a single master?
Nobody can, except the single master who's in control of same, and
whoever that is -- if there is -- is unlikely to voluntarily share
that in
The site has already been hacked/defaced, per "full-disclosure". I can't
personally verify or refute this because I can't reach it.
---Rsk
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:54:03AM -0600, Jerry Pasker wrote:
> The big difference between Lycos Europe, and a script kiddie with
> zombies is that Lycos is mature enough to use restraint and not knock
> down websites with brute force.
I have no idea whether they're mature enough. They're most
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:14:01PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> Techdirt has an article this morning that discusses how
> Lycos Europe is encouraging their users to run a screensaver
> that constantly "pings servers suspected to be used by
> spammers" and also suggests that "In other wor
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:47:14PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
> To me, and people who rely on email for reliable communication, yes absolutely
Email (that is: SMTP or ESMTP) was never been designed for reliable
communication. It's best-effort. No more.
(*Should* there be a new Internet ma
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:30:43AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I have been looking around, but haven't found it yet.. Is there a text list
> > of who owns what netblock worldwide? ISP/Location/Contact. I am not looking
> > for anything searchable, but rather, a large, up to date list that I can
[ Two replies in one. Last point has operational content. ]
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:52:59PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see that 56trf5.com is a real domain. Does this mean that
> the domain name registries and DNS are now being polluted
> with piles of garbage entries in the same way
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
